Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Georgia Votes for Convention of States to Amend Constitution
Newsmax ^ | 3/7/14 | Cheryl K. Chumley

Posted on 03/26/2014 10:33:58 AM PDT by PapaNew

The Georgia state legislature has passed a measure calling for a Convention of States to amend the U.S. Constitution, a move long championed by many in the tea party movement.

The action restricts the convention to topics of limiting the power of the federal government and establishing term limits for federal officials. Georgia's House voted 107-58 on Thursday to pass the measure, which previously had passed the state Senate.

"An Article V Convention of States would provide an opportunity for the citizens of this great nation to restore the balance of power between the states and the federal government," Republican state Rep. Buzz Brockway of Lawrenceville said in a statement.

Brockway, the measure's primary sponsor in the state House, urged "legislators in the other 49 states to join Georgia and call for a Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution."

Under Article V of the Constitution, such a convention can be convened when requested by two-thirds of the states, and it is one of two ways to propose amendments to the nation's founding document. Ratifying the amendment then requires three-fourths of the states to approve it.

A measure calling for a Convention of States also was recently passed by the Alaska House Finance Committee.

"The federal government is just not listening to us," its sponsor, state Rep. Tammie Wilson of North Pole, Alaska, said Wilson told Newsmax. "The states have certain rights. The Founding Fathers put this process in place for a reason."

The Alaska measure also specifies that a convention must be limited in what it can consider, as critics have raised the specter of a "runaway" convention that could take on an ambitious constitutional rewrite.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: constitution; government; states; taxes
From the Convention of States website in italics with some of my comments (bolding and underlining is mine also):

A Convention of States can propose amendments if 2/3 of states submit applications for such a convention. These applications must all deal with the same issue (i.e., limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government)

Article V gives states the power to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.

By calling a convention of the states, we can stop the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power. The current situation is precisely what the Founders feared, and they gave us a solution we have a duty to use.

After the states propose, debate, and vote upon the proposed amendments, they will be sent to the 50 state legislatures for ratification. Three-quarters of the states must agree for any of the proposed amendments to be ratified.

Congress has no authority to stop such a process.

Rather than calling a convention for a specific amendment, Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) has launched the Convention of the States Project to urge state legislatures to properly use Article V to call a convention for a particular subject—reducing the power of Washington, D.C. It is important to note that a convention for an individual amendment (e.g. a Balanced Budget Amendment) would be limited to that single idea. Requiring a balanced budget is a great idea that CSG fully supports. Congress, however, could comply with a Balanced Budget Amendment by simply raising taxes.

The following are examples of amendment topics that could be discussed at a convention of states:

A balanced budget amendment
Careful here. Must be carefully written to say that raising taxes above the prescribed % (should be flat, around 15% of income) is forbidden to balance the budget. Note: the deficit is not a big economic problem - TAXES ARE. Politicians generally have and always will spend more than they take in but only up to a point above the revenue rate. The BEST way to haul in spending is CUT TAXES to a FLAT RATE of about 15%.
• A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states)
• A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (the original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines--not all the economic activity of the nation)
• A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States.

Nipping Agenda 21 and Obama's Agenda 21 Executive Orders in the bud.
A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws).
Nipping the Administrative State in the bud. The unconstitutional, unaccountable, unelected, Administrative State needs to be abolished.
Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court.
For Congress, the bad news is this would limit the freedom of people to choose their representatives. The good news of course would be to oust demagogues and power mongers but if the voters would have reelected them what's to keep them for reelecting another crop of the same? Better is to tie their hands with these amendments and let the people decide who they want to elect. For SCOTUS, probably should be an option by a sitting POTUS to reassign a Justice if he chooses.
Placing an upper limit on federal taxation.
Should be a simple flat tax of around 15% of income. The lawyers and tax industry will howl. Let 'em howl. They're as bad or worse than the politicians. This will be the biggest fight becasue it is the heart of the matter: BIG GOVERNMENT SELF INTEREST. Yes, the same self-interested $4 TRILLION BIG GOVERNMENT that teaches that only private industry has greed and self interest. Shove it back in their face.
Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes

The leadership of the COS Project believes the success of a convention of states depends to a large extent on the American citizens. Our plan is as follows:

1. We seek to have a viable political operation that is active in a minimum of 40 states.
2. Our goal is to have local leaders--District Captains--in at least 75% of the districts in these states.
3. District captains will organize at least 100 people in each of these districts to contact their legislator to support a convention of the states, and turn out at least 25 people per district at legislative hearings.

God bless America and may we succeed in this.

1 posted on 03/26/2014 10:33:59 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
IBSSIACC (in before somebody says it's a con-con)

Maybe that will inoculate this thread from that happening, we'll see.

Link to COS:

The Federal Government is broken. Washington D.C. will never voluntarily relinquish its power. Left unchecked, the government will continue to bankrupt this nation and destroy the liberty of the people. It is time for citizens and the States to act and we have the solution.

2 posted on 03/26/2014 10:37:27 AM PDT by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan; AllAmericanGirl44; Amagi; Art in Idaho; Arthur Wildfire! March; Arthur McGowan; ...

Article V ping.


3 posted on 03/26/2014 10:42:19 AM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Bravo!

Mark Levin has stated his view that it will require some sort of national emergency for the Article V movement to find success. I hope he is wrong but I am convinced that without an Article V solution the country is destined for something worse than an emergency.


4 posted on 03/26/2014 10:44:14 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

posted over two weeks ago....


5 posted on 03/26/2014 10:46:23 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Couldn’t find it but it would help if you included the link.


6 posted on 03/26/2014 10:47:52 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: C210N

Thanks. Can’t imagine Free Republic not being completely behind this effort.


7 posted on 03/26/2014 10:49:26 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3130401/posts


8 posted on 03/26/2014 10:58:41 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes

I like it, but they need to be far more clear on "fairer" due to liberals and their, ever-evolving definition of words.

We are at the point of oppression. When and where will the next Lexington and Concord happen this go-round?

9 posted on 03/26/2014 11:00:26 AM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

A lot of initial negative reaction on that thread not realizing it is a convention of states limited to ONE SUBJECT: cutting big government. Random amendments are off the table. Hope people begin to understand this a little better.


10 posted on 03/26/2014 11:04:01 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

“Thanks. Can’t imagine Free Republic not being completely behind this effort.”

With the political, and moral environment that we have today then any modifications would turn out to be extremely liberal, and trash the basic ideas of the constitution. So this would be in effect to opening of a Pandora’s box.


11 posted on 03/26/2014 11:09:49 AM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Here's my usual pedantic boilerplate for these threads.

***

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.

Disposal:

Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

Implicitly forbidden:

I have two reference works for those interested.

The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

12 posted on 03/26/2014 11:12:11 AM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Thanks for the ping.

The president rewrites/amends/ignores laws as he pleases. Under His direction, governmental agencies stomp on political opponents.

I hope this benign and constitutional approach in Article V takes hold of the national mood before less-than-peaceful means enter the minds of men with nothing to lose.


13 posted on 03/26/2014 11:21:55 AM PDT by Jacquerie ( Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Revel
Well, as I see it, this is a Convention of States limited to only one subject matter: cutting federal government size and power. They will entertain no other subject.

That being the premise, it's pretty certain 2/3's of the states wouldn't put up with a rogue adventure by some wackos. This looks legit.

Best thing I see coming down the pike. Our greatest threat by far is the federal government who already ignores the Constitution. Time for the states to put a dunce hat on the feds and put them back into their corner where they belong.

14 posted on 03/26/2014 11:25:03 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Hey Publius, add me to your Article V ping list. We miss you up here in Washington State.


15 posted on 03/26/2014 11:26:49 AM PDT by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Good for Georgia....


16 posted on 03/26/2014 11:32:43 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigfootbob

Added! I’ll be leaving Georgia in May for either Texas or Spokane, so I may be back.


17 posted on 03/26/2014 11:35:20 AM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GraceG; Crazieman; Strawberry AZ

Article V ping.


18 posted on 03/26/2014 11:38:25 AM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Good luck to you, let us know where you end up!


19 posted on 03/26/2014 11:38:30 AM PDT by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

A Constitutional c onvention is a HORRIBLE idea....with liberalism as rampant as it is in this country, can you imagine what damage they would cause if they could modify the Constitution????? A horrible thought...at best.


20 posted on 03/26/2014 12:15:38 PM PDT by terycarl (common sense prevails over all else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew; Publius

“Republican state Rep. Buzz Brockway of Lawrenceville”
-
He’s my rep!


21 posted on 03/26/2014 12:16:46 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

Please read Post #12.


22 posted on 03/26/2014 12:17:34 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

There is a mixed bag of supporters and detractors
of an Article V Convention of States here on FR.


23 posted on 03/26/2014 12:19:15 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

Who said anything about a constitutional convention?
Are we reading the same thing?


24 posted on 03/26/2014 12:20:26 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
That's what I thought until I looked into it and read the premise of the convention. Did you read the premise? It is a Convention of States with a specific, limited subject matter: cutting federal government size and power. It is not open to ANY OTHER amendments. This is EXACTLY what needs to be done or else our country will disappear. The states who sign up under these conditions will not allow a push for some other rogue amendment.
25 posted on 03/26/2014 12:33:37 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

No, unfortunately, the “con-con” crowd is alive and well on FR... It appears that we too have our share of LIV’s...

Here’s how I see it...

1) Article V Convention
2) Nullification
3) Peaceful Secession
4) CW2

The founders included Article V for a reason! It was NOT an afterthought ... It is the DEFACTO backstop...


26 posted on 03/26/2014 1:07:37 PM PDT by bfh333 (William Wallace was right! ~~~ FRRRREEEEEEEEEEEDOM ~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

[ A Constitutional c onvention is a HORRIBLE idea....with liberalism as rampant as it is in this country, can you imagine what damage they would cause if they could modify the Constitution????? A horrible thought...at best. ]

I agree, a Con-Con is a HORRIBLE Idea... Soros WANTS an ILLEGAL Con-Con.

However an Article V Convention to PROPOSE new amendments is a very legal, very much enshrined in the constitution itself. An Article V Convention OF THE STATES is not a RE_writing of the whole constitution, it is merely a process that the State Legislatures can use to BYPASS congress in PROPOSING Amendments.

Congress can ALREADY propose new amendments, it is about the STATES propose some to take their power back after they were Neutered by the Progressive era Amendments and Wickard vs. Fillborn.

It only takes 13 states to Veto any Progressive liberal craptastic proposed amendments in the ratification process. I think we can summon up enough support to easily defeat ANY screwball liberal amendment that is proposed. The States themselves are mostly Conservative so this is a way of Neutering the FedGov complex before they finish killing off the the power that the states hold...


27 posted on 03/26/2014 1:12:31 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bfh333
That's how I see it also.

I guess I'm not clear about some of this terminology flying around - like the difference between an "Article V" Convention and a "Constitutional" Convention other than the idea of the latter being open ended and at least in this particular case, the former being limited to a single subject: cutting federal government size and power.

28 posted on 03/26/2014 1:27:21 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Read Post #12 closely, particularly the section marked “Implicitly forbidden”. It should be clearer.


29 posted on 03/26/2014 2:09:13 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Thanks. It seems kind of subtle. Lost on a lot of folks I think.


30 posted on 03/26/2014 2:19:19 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Publius - you post the same reply to every post I make. Okay, I have heard you. Please stop. Take me off of whatever list you have. Enough is enough.

Thank you and have a nice day


31 posted on 03/27/2014 3:58:47 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN (I do not doubt that our climate changes. I only doubt that anything man does has any effect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson